What percentage of luxury shoppers watch fashion shows or know anything about the designers of their favourite labels?

[nationalsalt]

I was discussing with someone earlier how much of an impact fashion shows make outside of the immediate attendees and online devotees - do most luxury shoppers ever see them?

Furthermore, are the majority of them remotely aware of the comings and goings of designers at the top houses, their inspirations behind each collection etc? (beyond what an SA might tell them.)

When you're invested in an industry I find it's hard to gauge how much the wider public actually knows or cares about it, or if we're just in a bubble and they only care about buying name brands for the supposed higher quality / status symbol.

What do you think?

 

[visvim2001]

depends which brands you’re talking about. yohji, undercover, rick, ysl, maybe significant. tom ford, Armani, a handful. Louis, Gucci, Loewe, Dior…fat chance. most of their customers just watch their rubbish on TikTok and instagram.

 

[Lola701]

To know a percentage, we would need a real investigation with numbers.
But the majority of luxury shoppers don’t know about the designers and certainly don’t care.
There are exceptions though: Karl Lagerfeld, Tom Ford, John Galliano, Donatella Versace, Olivier Rousteing.
Obviously, the designers like Jean Paul Gaultier are very famous but I don’t think the mass knew about him at Hermes at the time.

But a lot of designers who have their namesake brands are also quite unknown.

But I have to say that I always make a point to separate a luxury customer to a fashion customer.
The person who buys the runway look or the commercial version of the runway look knows the designer and is sensible to the various changes of creative direction.
We saw it with Marni. A lot of their women’s customer just left.
There’s a little community of Fendi RTW customers (that I’m a part of) who stopped buying when Kim Jones took over.

When Alexander Wang took Balenciaga, a lot of customers left. However, the luxury customer, who was buying the bags, the sneakers, the motorcycle jackets and boots continued to buy them. He even got a hit with his sock sneakers.

As brands gains in popularity, they attracts luxury customers that are into the products and the cool factor and not so much about the house itself. It’s happening with Rick Owens, Thom Browne or CDG for example.

 

[LadyJunon]

depends which brands you’re talking about. yohji, undercover, rick, ysl, maybe significant. tom ford, Armani, a handful. Louis, Gucci, Loewe, Dior…fat chance. most of their customers just watch their rubbish on TikTok and instagram.

I would probably swap YSL and Loewe considering that the current cultures of the brands are very different.

 

[blueorchid]

I mean… do most car buyers know the history of the car makes they purchase? Why does it matter, broadly speaking?

 

[nationalsalt]

depends which brands you’re talking about. yohji, undercover, rick, ysl, maybe significant. tom ford, Armani, a handful. Louis, Gucci, Loewe, Dior…fat chance. most of their customers just watch their rubbish on TikTok and instagram.

This is a good take. The more niche the brand the more invested a customer probably is in it, while bigger labels can bank on being bought for their name alone. It sounds so obvious now you've said it 😄

 

[nationalsalt]

To know a percentage, we would need a real investigation with numbers.
But the majority of luxury shoppers don’t know about the designers and certainly don’t care.
There are exceptions though: Karl Lagerfeld, Tom Ford, John Galliano, Donatella Versace, Olivier Rousteing.
Obviously, the designers like Jean Paul Gaultier are very famous but I don’t think the mass knew about him at Hermes at the time.

But a lot of designers who have their namesake brands are also quite unknown.

But I have to say that I always make a point to separate a luxury customer to a fashion customer.
The person who buys the runway look or the commercial version of the runway look knows the designer and is sensible to the various changes of creative direction.
We saw it with Marni. A lot of their women’s customer just left.
There’s a little community of Fendi RTW customers (that I’m a part of) who stopped buying when Kim Jones took over.

When Alexander Wang took Balenciaga, a lot of customers left. However, the luxury customer, who was buying the bags, the sneakers, the motorcycle jackets and boots continued to buy them. He even got a hit with his sock sneakers.

As brands gains in popularity, they attracts luxury customers that are into the products and the cool factor and not so much about the house itself. It’s happening with Rick Owens, Thom Browne or CDG for example.

This is true re: percentages - I was more asking for people's opinions on approximate percentages, but I could have been clearer!

That's a very good point though re: luxury customers vs fashion customers.

Which leads me to another question....I wonder what the ratio of luxury customers to fashion customers is with most brands? 😄

My guess would be the smaller / more niche the label, the higher the ratio of fashion customers and vice versa?

 

[nationalsalt]

I mean… do most car buyers know the history of the car makes they purchase? Why does it matter, broadly speaking?

I wouldn't say it "matters" per se, I was just curious if the fashion circus - which keeps many of us entertained - has much of a direct impact on shoppers' decisions, or if they're more influenced by brand names etc.

 

[Lola701]

This is true re: percentages - I was more asking for people's opinions on approximate percentages, but I could have been clearer!

That's a very good point though re: luxury customers vs fashion customers.

Which leads me to another question....I wonder what the ratio of luxury customers to fashion customers is with most brands? 😄

My guess would be the smaller / more niche the label, the higher the ratio of fashion customers and vice versa?

80% luxury, 20% fashion.
And I count on the luxury customers the ones who also buys the clothes if it makes sense.

A luxury customer has an attachement to the brand rather than a creative vision. I think a brand like Vuitton is the perfect example. There are people who buys from Vuitton because it’s Vuitton. The fact that it’s attached to the vision of Marc Jacobs or NG doesn’t even have any type of relevance.

But beyond luxury even because I think it’s the same ratio for contemporary brands.

I think things get tricky when a brand do get bigger and when it’s a fashion brand. I think historical customers, have a deep almost emotional attachement to the brand and the creative vision when for the mass, it’s just a cool product.

We saw it with Marni. Marni had that almost cult-like following. When Consuelo left, the brand changed. I think a lot of historical customers of Marni went to Plan C.

What I think is interesting about the fashion or luxury conversation nowadays is that the client is almost out of the equation because there’s a concensus regarding the fact that a luxury customer buys things everywhere.

Me personally, I respond to brands because of CD’s. My emotional attachement to some brands wants to see them succeed but I can be totally detached from the brand with a new CD. I used to buy Fendi RTW a lot under Karl and I totally stopped under Kim Jones. The bags were still great but at some point, how many versions of a baguette or a peekaboo someone can own!?

That being said, sometimes it’s very hard to judge the impact of a creative director. That impact is very visible often when he/she leaves. Sometimes we believe that the brand is bigger but in fact no: Lanvin or Givenchy. I don’t know if the mass knew about Alber Elbaz and Riccardo Tisci but we saw almost over season how their departure had an impact on the Destinee of those houses.

 

[blueorchid]

I wouldn't say it "matters" per se, I was just curious if the fashion circus - which keeps many of us entertained - has much of a direct impact on shoppers' decisions, or if they're more influenced by brand names etc.

I suppose, it's the same as other industries and fields that have highly attentive aficionados and fans. I think it's more faceless and nameless than we think with "luxury" vs. "fashion," the advertising matters much more I think with celebrities, influencers, etc. Maybe the general public knows more about eponymous designers, but maybe not... it depends what they're buying, why they're buying it, etc. Even when I think about what I buy, do I always care about the designer when I buy from a fashion house? Yes and no. If I buy a wallet I like, maybe not, but maybe more if it's an item of clothing?

 

[visvim2001]

I mean, since this is a fashion forum…
To clarify, I’m often of the opinion that brands with a strong accessories range often lack in RTW, and vice versa. This could be because I’m a straight guy, and have zero interest in bags, or a result of deliberate marketing strategies. A brand that is not rooted in RTW, which are basically most luxury houses, is irrelevant to me.

It doesn’t matter who the CD for LV, Dior, Hermes, Chanel is. Even when you consider the greatness of Hedi at Dior Homme, I reckon it was ultimately a small drop in a very big ocean. I will follow Saint Laurent, Armani and Yohji among the big names because they are couture houses; fashion is their lifeblood. Their designs are a matter of priority. And I think that Gucci should also focus on being a design driven, p*rno-chic house, contrary to industry opinion.

 

[runner]

on a bit different note, sketchily speaking, there are two critical approaches.
for one, the product or work itself is everything. there is basically no interest in the person who made it. what kind of person etc.
for the other, the product is what's created by the author. it's not like it exists, having nothing to do with the author.
the former might more easily find some truth that there is beyond author's intention. something which even the author was unconscious of.
the latter could increase our fun with the product.

 

[runner]

just for reference

"It seems to me that when we approach the arts we are all too likely to be self-conscious and on the defensive, forgetting that it is they that are trying to please us and not we who are trying to please them. There is nothing we can do to a work of art by either ignoring it or glaring at it, but there is a great deal it would like to do for us if we would give it half a chance. Art does not set out to be mysterious but, rather, to reveal mysteries; it does not seek to lock doors against us but to open them. We are likely to think that to appreciate the arts we must carry a pocketful of keys and a headful of historical knowledge. The trouble with this is that no matter how many keys we may carry the one we need is missing on most occasions, and historical knowledge, while it can enhance one's pleasure in the arts, cannot initiate it.
Pleasure - or appreciation, if you prefer- of any sort is a combination of discovery and receptiveness, and one is not likely to discover any pleasure unless he is in a mood to receive it. To feel the sensation of pleasure that the arts can give, whether in music or painting or architecture or sculpture, requires not just a conscientious effort of the mind but a certain sandpapering of the senses. You don't, for example, learn how to look at pictures by reading books about them. You learn to look at pictures by looking at them, by exercising the muscles of the sense of sight.
This, I grant you, sounds like a mightily mixed metaphor - and it is. But delight in the arts is a mightily mixed bag of experiences, of emotions, of senses that anyone can have who wants them. "

russell lynes